DRDO ties up with Ramdev to market supplements, food products

Mangaluru, Jun 12: A pregnant woman who returned from Maharashtra and tested positive for coronavirus on Wednesday, gave birth to a child at the Wenlock COVID-19 hospital in Mangaluru. After she experienced labour pain, a team of expert doctors performed the delivery through the caesarean section on Thursday.

Both the woman and the new born are safe, hospital sources said. The woman, who belongs to Kinnigoli in Dakshina Kannada district, had arrived in the city on Monday. She was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and was taken to another hospital the next day after she complained of weakness.

As she came from Maharashtra, she was shifted to a separate ward at the Wenlock hospital and quarantined. Her throat swab samples tested positive on Wednesday. A COVID-19 test will be done on the baby after a few days, district health officer Ramachandra Bairy said.

Mangaluru, May 4: An engineering student has claimed to have received 600 threat calls in the past few days from unidentified people for starting fish business during the lockdown in Kavoor. 

According to Sakshath Shetty, resident of Kavoor, he started receiving threat calls from various people after he started selling fish during the lockdown. 

Police said they have been able to identify some of the numbers from where the threat calls were made and investigation is under way.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.